When configuring CBMutableCharacteristic to setup an iOS device as a peripheral, one of the possible values for CBCharacteristicProperties is CBCharacteristicPropertyBroadcast.
But if you choose it, at run-time you'll get:
*** Terminating app due to uncaught exception 'NSInternalInconsistencyException',
reason: 'CBCharacteristicPropertyBroadcast is not allowed'
I'm creating the characteristic this way:
let characteristic = CBMutableCharacteristic(type: myCharacteristicUUID,
properties: CBCharacteristicProperties.Broadcast,
value: characteristicValue,
permissions: CBAttributePermissions.Readable)
What is the purpose of CBCharacteristicPropertyBroadcast? CBCharacteristicPropertyRead and CBCharacteristicPropertyNotify work but I'd like to know why I can't use the other value.
Ideally, I'd like to broadcast user data as a peripheral without serving as a beacon. Is this feasible?
The documentation is pretty clear. You cannot use this property on characteristics you publish. The purpose of this value is to enable you to interpret the properties of characteristics that are discovered from other peripherals.
If you want to advise centralised that your value has changed then notify is the appropriate method.
Related
I have managed to create a virtual IOPCIDevice which attaches to IOResources and basically does nothing. I'm able to get existing drivers to register and match to it.
However when it comes to IO handling, I have some trouble. IO access by functions (e.g. configRead, ioRead, configWrite, ioWrite) that are described in IOPCIDevice class can be handled by my own code. But drivers that use memory mapping and IODMACommand are the problem.
There seems to be two things that I need to manage: IODeviceMemory(described in the IOPCIDevice) and DMA transfer.
How could I create a IODeviceMemory that ultimately points to memory/RAM, so that when driver tries to communicate to PCI device, it ultimately does nothing or just moves the data to RAM, so my userspace client can handle this data and act as an emulated PCI device?
And then could DMA commands be directed also to my userspace client without interfering to existing drivers' source code that use IODMACommand.
Thanks!
Trapping memory accesses
So in theory, to achieve what you want, you would need to allocate a memory region, set its protection bits to read-only (or possibly neither read nor write if a read in the device you're simulating has side effects), and then trap any writes into your own handler function where you'd then simulate device register writes.
As far as I'm aware, you can do this sort of thing in macOS userspace, using Mach exception handling. You'd need to set things up that page protection fault exceptions from the process you're controlling get sent to a Mach port you control. In that port's message handler, you'd:
check where the access was going to
if it's the device memory, you'd suspend all the threads of the process
switch the thread where the write is coming from to single-step, temporarily allow writes to the memory region
resume the writer thread
trap the single-step message. Your "device memory" now contains the written value.
Perform your "device's" side effects.
Turn off single-step in the writer thread.
Resume all threads.
As I said, I believe this can be done in user space processes. It's not easy, and you can cobble together the Mach calls you need to use from various obscure examples across the web. I got something similar working once, but can't seem to find that code anymore, sorry.
… in the kernel
Now, the other problem is you're trying to do this in the kernel. I'm not aware of any public KPIs that let you do anything like what I've described above. You could start looking for hacks in the following places:
You can quite easily make IOMemoryDescriptors backed by system memory. Don't worry about the IODeviceMemory terminology: these are just IOMemoryDescriptor objects; the IODeviceMemory class is a lie. Trapping accesses is another matter entirely. In principle, you can find out what virtual memory mappings of a particular MD exist using the "reference" flag to the createMappingInTask() function, and then call the redirect() method on the returned IOMemoryMap with a NULL backing memory argument. Unfortunately, this will merely suspend any thread attempting to access the mapping. You don't get a callback when this happens.
You could dig into the guts of the Mach VM memory subsystem, which mostly lives in the osfmk/vm/ directory of the xnu source. Perhaps there's a way to set custom fault handlers for a VM region there. You're probably going to have to get dirty with private kernel APIs though.
Why?
Finally, why are you trying to do this? Take a step back: What is it you're ultimately trying to do with this? It doesn't seem like simulating a PCI device in this way is an end to itself, so is this really the only way to do what greater goal you're ultimately trying to achieve? See: XY problem
I am developing a simple device driver for study. With a lot of testing, I am creating so many errors which finally leads my computer to blue screen. I am sure that the reason for this is memory crash. So now I want to check if my code can access to Kernel memory before going further.
My question is what function can check whether it is accessible or not in kernel memory. For instance, there is a pointer structure with two fields and I want to access the first field which is also a pointer but do now know whether it really has an accessible value or just trash value.
In this given context, I need to check it out to make sure that I am not getting blue screen.
Thanks in advance!
this is impossible for kernel memory. you must know exactly are kernel address is valid and will be valid during access. if you get address from user mode - you can and must use ProbeForRead or ProbeForWrite. but this is only for user-mode buffer. for any kernel memory (even valid and resident) this function just raise exception. from invalid access to kernel memory address no any protection. try - except handler not help here - you just got PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA bug check
For instance, there is a pointer structure with two fields and I want
to access the first field which is also a pointer but do now know
whether it really has an accessible value or just trash value.
from where you got this pointer ? who fill this structure ? you must not check. you must know at begin that this pointer is valid and context of structure will be valid during time you use it. otherwise your code already wrong and buggy
Long term goal, build software to implement midi control surface as a user interface for industrial control applications by using a prebuilt midi controller instead of building and wiring a custom control panel. Short term goal, read the name of the midi device plugged into the computer. Immediate problem, the compiler says 'illegal qualifier, szPname". I believe that szPname is a subset of the caps structure but I don't understand how to get to it.
I am using implementing winmm from FreePascal on a windows 10 machine.
here is my current code...
program asd;
uses mmSystem;
var
caps: ^MIDIINCAPS;
begin
writeln(midiInGetNumDevs());
midiInGetDevCaps(0,caps,SizeOf(MIDIINCAPS));
writeln(caps.szPname);
end.
The documentation says:
Error: Illegal qualifier
One of the following is happening:
You’re trying to access a field of a variable that is not a record.
You’re indexing a variable that is not an array.
You’re dereferencing a variable that is not a pointer.
In this case, caps is a pointer, so you must dereference it before you can access the record fields:
WriteLn(caps^.szPname);
(Other compilers can automatically dereference pointers to records. Apparently, FreePascal cannot.)
You also need to allocate memory for caps. (Or don't use a pointer.)
The docs for the SetupDiSetDeviceRegistryProperty function say,
The following values are reserved for use by the operating system and
cannot be used in the Property parameter ...
SPDRP_HARDWAREID
However, there are lots of examples of code out there, including MS DevCon utility which uses this function with the SPDRP_HARDWAREID parameter, ie:
SetupDiSetDeviceRegistryProperty(DeviceInfoSet,
&DeviceInfoData,
SPDRP_HARDWAREID,
(LPBYTE)hwIdList,
(lstrlen(hwIdList)+1+1)*sizeof(TCHAR)))
They also have an article which suggests doing so:
If an installer detects a non-PnP device, the installer should select a driver for the device as follows: create a device information element (SetupDiCreateDeviceInfo), set the SPDRP_HARDWAREID property by calling SetupDiSetDeviceRegistryProperty
I'd like to (and do) use this function to set Hardware ID for my virtual device. The question is - is it a typo in the manual, or it's some sort of unsupported behavior and therefore it can stop working any time?
TL;DR: If you're creating a root-enumerated device node, you're free to set SPDRP_HARDWAREID/SPDRP_COMPATIBLEIDS yourself by calling SetupDiSetDeviceRegistryProperty. Otherwise you're not allowed to do so.
This was an error in the docs that was fixed at some point.
Today the docs of SetupDiSetDeviceRegistryProperty read:
SPDRP_HARDWAREID or SPDRP_COMPATIBLEIDS can only be used when DeviceInfoData represents a root-enumerated device. For other devices, the bus driver reports hardware and compatible IDs when enumerating a child device after receiving IRP_MN_QUERY_ID. [Emphasis mine]
... which is exactly what DevCon does.
Recently I read the source of leveldb, the source url is https://leveldb.googlecode.com/files/leveldb-1.13.0.tar.gz
And when I read db/db_impl.cc,there comes the following code:
mutex_.AssertHeld()
I follow it into file port/port_posix.h,and I find the following :
void AssertHeld() { }
Then I grep in the souce dir,but can't find anyother implementation of the AssertHeld() anymore.
So here is my question,what does the mutex_.AssertHeld() do in db/db_impl.cc? THX
As you have observed it does nothing in the default implementation. The function seems to be a placeholder for checking whether a particular thread holds a mutex and optionally abort if it doesn't. This would be equivalent to the normal asserts we use for variables but applied on mutexes.
I think the reason it is not implemented yet is we don't have an equivalent light weight function to assert whether a thread holds a lock in pthread_mutex_t used in the default implementation. Some platforms which has that capability could fill this implementation as part of porting process. Searching online I did find some implementation for this function in the windows port of leveldb. I can see one way to implement it using a wrapper class over pthread_mutex_t and setting some sort of a thread id variable to indicate which thread(s) currently holds the mutex, but it will have to be carefully implemented given the race conditions that can arise.